1. Metadata
Case Name: Zihad Ahmed v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr.
Court: High Court of Delhi
Citation: CRL.M.C. 3406 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Narula
Petitioner: Zihad Ahmed
Respondents: State NCT of Delhi and Another
Date of Judgment: 27 May 2025
2. Introduction
This case came before the Delhi High Court on a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking the quashing of an FIR and all consequential criminal proceedings against the petitioner, Zihad Ahmed. The case involved grave allegations of sexual harassment, extortion, and cyber exploitation of a minor girl who was a fellow student. The FIR had been registered under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
After partial trial and the framing of charges, the complainant and her mother executed a Settlement Deed on 6 May 2025, expressing their desire to withdraw from the proceedings for personal and social reasons. The court was called upon to decide whether criminal proceedings rooted in non-compoundable offences could be quashed on the basis of a private settlement between the parties, and whether victim autonomy and the need for closure could, in exceptional circumstances, outweigh the principle that non-compoundable offences serve a public interest that cannot be waived by private compromise.
3. Summary of Facts
The petitioner and the complainant were students at the same school. Over time, the petitioner persuaded the complainant to share personal images with him. Following a breakdown in their relationship, the petitioner threatened to make those images public and demanded money from the complainant. The petitioner’s friend, a Child in Conflict with Law, also participated in the extortion. The petitioner subsequently gained unauthorised access to the complainant’s Instagram account and posted explicit images without her consent.
The distressing situation came to light when the complainant’s mother discovered inappropriate messages. FIR No. 182 of 2019 was registered against the petitioner under Sections 354, 354C, 384, 506, 509, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The trial progressed, charges were framed, and partial evidence was recorded.
On 6 May 2025, the complainant and her mother executed a Settlement Deed in which the complainant consented to the quashing of the proceedings. The complainant and her mother stated before the court that they desired to move on from the matter for social and personal reasons, including the emotional toll of the ongoing criminal proceedings and the associated social stigma. The complainant stated that continuation of the proceedings would adversely affect her future, including her marriage prospects. The petitioner applied for quashing of the FIR on the basis of this settlement.
4. Issues Before the Court
Issue 1: Whether criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences under Sections 354 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 can be quashed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 on the basis of a private settlement between the petitioner and the complainant.
Issue 2: Whether quashing the FIR on the basis of the complainant’s informed choice and settlement would serve the ends of justice or undermine public interest and the deterrent purpose of criminal law.
5. Arguments by Both Parties
Arguments of the Petitioner:
The petitioner submitted that the complainant had freely and voluntarily executed the Settlement Deed, expressing her informed desire to drop the proceedings. Relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ((2012) 10 SCC 303) and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab ((2014) 6 SCC 466), the petitioner argued that even in cases involving non-compoundable offences, High Courts have the inherent power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash proceedings when the matter is essentially of a personal nature and the victim has reached an informed settlement. It was submitted that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the victim’s wishes caused her ongoing harm and that justice, in these particular circumstances, favoured quashing.
Arguments of the Respondent:
The State submitted that the offences in question, including offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 354 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, are non-compoundable and serve a significant public interest purpose beyond the interests of the individual complainant. The continuation of criminal proceedings was said to be necessary not only to punish the offender but also to serve the larger deterrent purpose of the law and to protect other potential victims. The State argued that permitting quashing on the basis of private settlement would undermine the criminal justice system’s capacity to respond to serious cases of digital exploitation and sexual harassment.
6. Reasonings and Findings
Justice Sanjeev Narula of the Delhi High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and criminal proceedings, subject to specific conditions. The court acknowledged the gravity of the offences and did not minimise the seriousness of the petitioner’s alleged conduct. However, the court adopted a nuanced and victim-centred approach in its analysis.
The court surveyed the established jurisprudence on the quashing of non-compoundable offences by the High Court under its inherent powers. Drawing on the principles articulated in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ((2012) 10 SCC 303) and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab ((2014) 6 SCC 466), the court reaffirmed that High Courts may, in exceptional circumstances, exercise their inherent powers to quash proceedings even in non-compoundable cases, where the matter is predominantly of a personal nature and where continuation of proceedings would cause disproportionate harm to the complainant without commensurate benefit to the public interest.
The court carefully assessed the position of the complainant and her mother. Both had appeared and stated that the settlement had been entered into freely, without any coercion or inducement, and that the complainant’s desire to withdraw was a reflection of her considered personal choice. The court recognised the social stigma, emotional toll, and adverse consequences for the complainant’s future that continued prosecution would entail. The complainant’s autonomy and her right to determine the course of proceedings that directly affected her own life were accorded significant weight.
The court also imposed specific conditions to ensure accountability: the petitioner was prohibited from contacting the complainant or her family; he was required to undertake one month of community service at Lok Nayak Hospital; and he was directed to deposit Rs 50,000 to the Army Welfare Fund. The court further directed that if the private images were ever to resurface or be circulated, the complainant would be at liberty to revive the FIR.
7. Judgment and Conclusion
The Delhi High Court quashed the FIR and all consequential criminal proceedings in FIR No. 182 of 2019, subject to the fulfilment of the conditions imposed. The court clarified that the decision was based solely on the complainant’s free and informed choice and should not be construed as an exoneration of the petitioner’s alleged conduct. The judgment illustrates a progressive and victim-centred use of the court’s inherent powers, recognising that in exceptional cases, the complainant’s dignity, autonomy, and future wellbeing may be best served by allowing her to choose closure over continued prosecution.
8. Frequently Asked Questions
Q1. What is a non-compoundable offence?
A non-compoundable offence is a criminal offence in which the law does not permit the complainant and the accused to reach a private compromise that terminates the prosecution. Such offences are regarded as affecting public interest beyond the personal interests of the victim. However, courts have recognised that in exceptional cases, High Courts may exercise their inherent powers to quash proceedings even for non-compoundable offences when justice so demands.
Q2. Under what circumstances can a High Court quash proceedings for non-compoundable offences?
In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ((2012) 10 SCC 303), the Supreme Court held that High Courts can exercise their inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings even for non-compoundable offences when the matter is essentially personal in nature, the victim has entered a genuine settlement, and the ends of justice would be better served by quashing than by continuation. Each case must be assessed on its own facts, with due regard to the nature of the offence and the public interest.
Q3. What is Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023?
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court, equivalent to the former Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It empowers the High Court to make such orders as are necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court and to secure the ends of justice. It is under this provision that applications for quashing of FIRs and criminal proceedings are filed.
Q4. Why did the court impose conditions on quashing?
The court imposed conditions to ensure a measure of accountability and to protect the complainant. The prohibition on contact with the complainant protects her from further harassment. The community service and financial deposit serve as symbolic recognition of the gravity of the conduct even in the absence of criminal punishment. The liberty to revive the FIR if images resurface ensures that the complainant retains a remedy against future exploitation.
Q5. Does this judgment encourage settlements in sexual offence cases?
The court specifically cautioned against this interpretation. The judgment was based on the unique facts of the case, including the complainant’s free and informed choice, the social and emotional consequences of continued proceedings, and the predominantly personal nature of the dispute. The court made clear that its decision should not be understood as exonerating the petitioner or as a general signal that sexual offence proceedings can routinely be quashed through settlement.
